Asked by: Lord Ouseley (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures are being applied to young offender institutions and secure training centres to make them safe and secure for staff and offenders, and appropriate for the provision of care for detainees.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie - Shadow Minister (Justice)
Carrying on the youth justice reforms from 2017, we are providing funding for every Prison Officer in the Youth Custody Service to undertake a youth justice qualification and, on completion, transition into a new youth justice specialist role on promotion and at a higher pay-grade. Over 400 frontline staff are currently enrolled on this qualification.
To better support young people in custody, we are rolling out the Custody Support Plan (CuSP) and implementing the use of Promoting Risk Intervention by Situational Management (PRISM). CuSP will provide each young person with a personal officer to work with in order to build trust and consistency. PRISM is an evidence-based process specifically designed and tested for use within custodial institutions. It provides a comprehensive framework for reviewing features of an environment that are known to contribute to the likelihood and emergence of violence.
As well as this we are working closely with the NHS on ‘Secure Stairs’, which is a new integrated approach to strengthen the provision of health care to address the needs of young people holistically and co-ordinates services through a coherent, joined up approach. In addition, we are increasing psychology staff and support, and opening Enhanced Support Units for young people with the most complex needs.
Asked by: Lord Ouseley (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact on knife-related offences of the reduction in funding for the work of youth offending teams from £145 million in 2010 to £71.5 million in 2019.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie - Shadow Minister (Justice)
Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) play an important role in preventing offending and reoffending by children. The funding for YOTs provided through the Youth Justice Board’s annual grant has reduced by around a half since 2009/10 from £145m to £71.6m in 2018/19. Alongside this, the numbers of first time entrants (FTEs) into the youth justice system has decreased by 77% between 2009/10 and 2017/18 and 86% in the last decade, and while FTEs declined by 14% between 2016/17 and 2017/18 the YOT grant was maintained at the same level as the previous year. The YOT grant on average makes up just less than a third of the funding YOTs receive, with the majority coming from local authorities and partner agencies based on their local assessment of the needs of their area.
Where a young person has been convicted of a knife crime YOTs will assess their needs and put in place a plan to prevent further offending. However, it is key for all agencies to work together to tackle knife crime. Last week the Chancellor announced that further funding of £100 million would be immediately available to police forces to address knife and violent crime in the worst affected areas in England and Wales. This new funding will enable police forces to have more officers available build capacity to prevent and respond to knife crime or patrol in communities. This is addition to the £200 million Youth Endowment Fund announced by the Home Secretary last October which will be delivered over the next 10 years, targeting those children most at risk of becoming involved in serious violence and focussing on early intervention and prevention.
Asked by: Lord Ouseley (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the amount of unpaid court imposed fines on individuals who are not able to pay; and what steps they intend to take to deal with this matter.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie - Shadow Minister (Justice)
HM Courts and Tribunals Service actively manages all outstanding court ordered financial impositions and uses a number of intelligence tools to identify and implement suitable enforcement sanctions against those who fail to comply with the order.
The Court uses the information it has available to it when setting a financial imposition to determine the level at which the fine should be set together with any repayment terms.
If an offenders’ circumstances change after a fine has been imposed they can request a means hearing where the court will review the amounts they owe and their circumstances. The Court may as a result decide to remit some of the amounts outstanding or change the payment terms previously agreed.
This Government takes recovery and enforcement of financial impositions very seriously and remains committed to finding new ways to ensure impositions are paid and clamping down on fine defaulters is a continued priority nationwide. There are a number of sanctions available to HMCTS and the courts for offenders who default on the payment terms of their orders. These can include deductions from the offender’s benefits or attachment of earnings orders if they are employed, clamping of vehicles, issue of warrants of control to seize goods to the value owed and ultimately imprisonment for non-payment.
Asked by: Lord Ouseley (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the value of court imposed fines for crimes committed that have been left unpaid; and what steps they are taking to recover payments due.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie - Shadow Minister (Justice)
The amount of outstanding court fines as at 31st March for the financial year 2017/18 is detailed below.
Year ended 31st March | Cumulative amount outstanding £’000 |
2018 | 623,609 |
The total amount of outstanding fines includes impositions made in the year stated or any previous year. It includes accounts that were not due to be paid by the end of the period specified and those that were being paid by instalments on agreed payment plans
This Government takes the recovery and enforcement of financial impositions very seriously and remains committed to ensuring impositions are paid. The courts will do everything within their powers to trace those who do not pay and use a variety of means to ensure the recovery of criminal fines and financial penalties. Money can be deducted from an offender's earnings or from benefits if they are unemployed. Other ‘upfront’ compliance actions include, increased use of telephone and text message chasing and use of tracing tools. Warrants can be issued instructing approved enforcement agents to seize and sell goods belonging to the offender. Ultimately an offender can be imprisoned for non-payment of their fine.
Asked by: Lord Ouseley (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of Community Rehabilitation Companies; and what evidence they have to demonstrate that part-privatisation of the probation services is keeping the public safe and turning discharged prisoners' lives around.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
We closely monitor and robustly manage Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) to make sure they fulfil their contractual commitments and deliver effective probation services.
Data on CRC performance against service levels are published quarterly, with the latest data published in July: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/community-performance-quarterly-and-annual-2016-to-2017. The first set of final reoffending data for offenders supervised by CRCs will be published later this month and thereafter data will be published quarterly.
We have already taken action to change CRC contracts so they can focus on critical operational services, and we continue to work with them to ensure they protect the public and rehabilitate offenders.
Asked by: Lord Ouseley (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many individuals will be refunded employment tribunal fees, following the decision of the Supreme Court in R v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51; and what is the estimated cost of those refunds.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
We do not collect centrally information on the number of individual claimants and respondents who paid a fee in the Employment Tribunals. The number of fee payments received in the Employment Tribunals between 29 July 2013 (when fees were introduced) and 30 June 2017 is published at the following location: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunals-and-gender-recognition-certificate-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2017-and-2016-to-2017. These statistics are updated quarterly.
The estimated cost of Employment Tribunals fees refunds, including interest, is £33m.
Asked by: Lord Ouseley (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they intend to respond to the Local Government Association's request for an urgent action plan to improve conditions in youth custody provision, following the conclusion by HM Inspectorate of Prisons, set out in the 2016–17 Annual Report of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, that "there was not a single establishment…inspected…in which it was safe to hold children and young people."
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The Government is determined to improve safety and reduce the risk of serious incidents, violence and self-harm in youth custody. We acknowledge that levels of violence within the youth estate are too high and outcomes for children and young people in custody are not good enough. Following the Government’s response to Charlie Taylor’s review of the youth justice system, a new Youth Custody Service (YCS) has been created to focus on performance in the Youth Secure Estate and a Youth Justice Reform Programme has been established.
The aims of the programme are to improve standards by making youth custody a place of safety, both for young people and those who work there; and to improve the life chances of young people in custody. We are investing £64 million to entrench the reform of youth custody. We will boost the number of frontline staff in youth offender institutions by 20% – 120 additional recruits, including newly trained specialist youth justice workers, equipped to tackle the needs of young offenders. We are also developing two new Secure Schools.
Asked by: Lord Ouseley (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what equality impact assessment was undertaken prior to the decision to reduce the Ogden discount rate; and what assessment they have made of the impact on low income car drivers.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie - Shadow Minister (Justice)
On 27 February the Lord Chancellor reduced the personal injury discount rate set under section 1 of the Damages Act 1996 to minus 0.75%.
It would have been unlawful for the Lord Chancellor not to have taken action once the consultation and review process in relation to the discount rate was complete. Under the law it is clear that the Lord Chancellor may not be influenced by the impact on defendants in setting the rate.
In setting the rate the Lord Chancellor complied with the legal principles relevant to the setting of the discount rate and the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
The Government acknowledges that the change in the rate will have significant implications across the public and private sectors and has committed to review the legal framework for the setting of the rate to ensure it remains fit for purpose in the future. A consultation paper will be published before Easter.
Following the consultation, the government will consider whether there is a better or fairer framework for claimants and defendants, and bring forward any necessary legislation at an early stage.
Asked by: Lord Ouseley (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) who will benefit from the proposed reduction in the Ogden discount rate, and (2) who will be most adversely affected by consequent increased costs in car insurance premiums.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie - Shadow Minister (Justice)
On 27 February the Lord Chancellor reduced the personal injury discount rate set under section 1 of the Damages Act 1996 to minus 0.75%.
It would have been unlawful for the Lord Chancellor not to have taken action once the consultation and review process in relation to the discount rate was complete. Under the law it is clear that the Lord Chancellor may not be influenced by the impact on defendants in setting the rate.
In setting the rate the Lord Chancellor complied with the legal principles relevant to the setting of the discount rate and the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
The Government acknowledges that the change in the rate will have significant implications across the public and private sectors and has committed to review the legal framework for the setting of the rate to ensure it remains fit for purpose in the future. A consultation paper will be published before Easter.
Following the consultation, the government will consider whether there is a better or fairer framework for claimants and defendants, and bring forward any necessary legislation at an early stage.
Asked by: Lord Ouseley (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the protection of children in care and children in need of delays in the work undertaken by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie - Shadow Minister (Justice)
Data collected by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) shows that, since April 2012, the average time to complete care and supervision applications has reduced from 48 weeks to 30 weeks. These are the proceedings most commonly initiated by a local authority and Cafcass has played a key role in working with other parts of the family justice system to achieve that reduction.
Since April 2012, Cafcass has also exceeded its targets to allocate at least 97% of the open public law care workload to an appointed Children’s Guardian, and to allocate care applications to an appointed Children’s Guardian in no more than 3 working days.